Tim wants to be your banker and is in bed with the biggest bankster of all- Goldman Sachs. If one remembers, Goldman sold CDOs and synthetic CDOs to the market and then bet against them as they knew they were toxic- this NYT article details it.
"But Goldman and other firms eventually used the C.D.O.’s to place unusually large negative bets that were not mainly for hedging purposes, and investors and industry experts say that put the firms at odds with their own clients’ interests."
Would you ever trust one red cent to anyone connected to Goldman?
All true -- but you left out one important fact: The entire U.S. brokerage / financial system was doing the same -- at least the big players: from insurers to credit rating agencies to audit firms to brokers to banks -- including international banks. Goldman did wrong -- but they had lots of competition.
If we had true capitalism in this country Goldman Sachs would no longer exist. But us lucky taxpayers got to subsidize this corrupt socialized industry who ruined millions of lives by destroying investments and retirements of hardworking Americans.
Neither would the U.S. financial system. The only real crime was that the real criminals didn't go to jail.
Of all the banks to partner with, Goldman Sachs? Every major financial scandal in the last few years has Goldman Sachs' grubby hands in it. This is the only megacorp whose (shameless and persistent lack of) ethics rivals and maybe even exceeds Facebook.
? No, they have had lots of competition in the grubby market. Deutsche Bank for instance has been laundering money for both Russia and U.S. politicians.
If we had true capitalism in this country Goldman Sachs would no longer exist. But us lucky taxpayers got to subsidize this corrupt socialized industry who ruined millions of lives by destroying investments and retirements of hardworking Americans.
Goldman Sachs is unfortunate "true capitalism", reckless, greed driven with no regards to it's investors and those whose retirements depend on them. "True Capitalism" also left them off leash when oversight and rules where thrown out the window. Please look up what the work "social" means, here is a hint to play nice with others, to be considerate and make sure everyone has something.
The original poster's point was that under true capitalism, Goldman Sachs would have failed rather than be propped up by the government and thereby guaranteed by additional debt. I don't know why Apple would work with the firm, but it isn't for the need of funds to back the venture. Apple could pay for it with the proverbial coins under the couch cushions.
The word "social" and the words "socialist" or "socialized" are not interchangeable. Regardless of what you find when you look up the word "socialized," in practice it means to be controlled by brute force, to have no consideration for anyone, and to make sure you have something whether or not others have anything under the guise of ensuring that everyone is sharing misery equally. You can dream about Scandinavian socialism all you like but it ends up like Venezuela. You have to be naive to think that socialism isn't driven by greed and envy.
I know what the original post was suggesting and my point is capitalism has been highjacked by Libertarian "me first and who cares about everyone else". You are confusing socialism with communism the later's ideal of sharing everything equally. Socialism has existed in the US since the great depression, and the creation of the income tax. Before Social Security was created elders who no longer worked and had no family or children were pretty much on their own. Every American pays into the SS fund and can draw a pension at their time of retirement. I can imagine anyone thinking this is a bad thing. I have traveled to Scandinavia for 35 years and have seen a democratic - socialism - capitalism government and society close up and it is something to envy and not fear. Too many Americans have no idea of anything outside of the US which is a shame, Please explain what ""socialized," in practice it means to be controlled by brute force, to have no consideration for anyone" ? I think you are thinking of a totalitarian system or dictatorship?
If we had true capitalism in this country Goldman Sachs would no longer exist. But us lucky taxpayers got to subsidize this corrupt socialized industry who ruined millions of lives by destroying investments and retirements of hardworking Americans.
Goldman Sachs is unfortunate "true capitalism", reckless, greed driven with no regards to it's investors and those whose retirements depend on them. "True Capitalism" also left them off leash when oversight and rules where thrown out the window. Please look up what the work "social" means, here is a hint to play nice with others, to be considerate and make sure everyone has something.
The original poster's point was that under true capitalism, Goldman Sachs would have failed rather than be propped up by the government and thereby guaranteed by additional debt. I don't know why Apple would work with the firm, but it isn't for the need of funds to back the venture. Apple could pay for it with the proverbial coins under the couch cushions.
The word "social" and the words "socialist" or "socialized" are not interchangeable. Regardless of what you find when you look up the word "socialized," in practice it means to be controlled by brute force, to have no consideration for anyone, and to make sure you have something whether or not others have anything under the guise of ensuring that everyone is sharing misery equally. You can dream about Scandinavian socialism all you like but it ends up like Venezuela. You have to be naive to think that socialism isn't driven by greed and envy.
I know what the original post was suggesting and my point is capitalism has been highjacked by Libertarian "me first and who cares about everyone else". You are confusing socialism with communism the later's ideal of sharing everything equally. Socialism has existed in the US since the great depression, and the creation of the income tax. Before Social Security was created elders who no longer worked and had no family or children were pretty much on their own. Every American pays into the SS fund and can draw a pension at their time of retirement. I can imagine anyone thinking this is a bad thing. I have traveled to Scandinavia for 35 years and have seen a democratic - socialism - capitalism government and society close up and it is something to envy and not fear. Too many Americans have no idea of anything outside of the US which is a shame, Please explain what ""socialized," in practice it means to be controlled by brute force, to have no consideration for anyone" ? I think you are thinking of a totalitarian system or dictatorship?
Very, true and well said! We have been overrun by extremists on both the left and right and neither seem to understand basic terminology -- or perhaps they don't want to understand it and instead redefine it in order to demonize and disparage those on the other side.
The "Democratic Socialists" speak of the evils of capitalism (usually by picking the most egregious examples and then exaggerating them) The Libertarians decry anything leaning towards socialism (or anything that involves government control) as "the sky is falling in" kind of evil.
And, increasingly both seem to be justifying their own position by attacking the other.
The truth is: A country needs a bit of both wisely administered. Pure capitalism doesn't work long term -- that's why we abandoned it. But, at the same time, pure socialism doesn't work long term either -- that's why China abandoned it.
For those of you with reservations about the Goldman-Sachs angle: I understand and sympathise with those concerns, because you are 100 percent right about G-S's large role in the last recession, BUT ... Goldman-Sachs has been working with Apple for a very long time (they are the principle managers of Apple's debt offerings, for starters), going back to Steve.
As for Spice-Boy's comment: um, you were aware that Apple offers financing on its purchases, right? Is that not a loan? Has Apple ever not offered similar financing? It's a bit late to be worried that Apple might be involved in (gasp) the credit industry at this point ...
After 2% cash back, there is NO profit here on the table other than from "Interest" and "Fees". Is that the business Apple really wants to be in? I hope not
I have to believe Apple has done crazy amount of financial modeling here. I can't understand how they think they are going to make any profits. It is such a waste of time and energy
After 2% cash back, there is NO profit here on the table other than from "Interest" and "Fees". Is that the business Apple really wants to be in? I hope not
I have to believe Apple has done crazy amount of financial modeling here. I can't understand how they think they are going to make any profits. It is such a waste of time and energy
Apple plays the long game with profits and derives them from great products. it is only mediocre companies that follow your advice. Apple isn't mediocre.
So many good social justice warriors on this thread. Way to call out all the bad people. You are so righteous and important. Keep up the good fight. Slay those windmills. Lol.
Back to the topic at hand, this seems like a great thing, will definitely use it, but only if privacy can be guaranteed. I looked for a credit card that guarantees privacy, and it doesn’t look like such a thing exists.
If we had true capitalism in this country Goldman Sachs would no longer exist. But us lucky taxpayers got to subsidize this corrupt socialized industry who ruined millions of lives by destroying investments and retirements of hardworking Americans.
Goldman Sachs is unfortunate "true capitalism", reckless, greed driven with no regards to it's investors and those whose retirements depend on them. "True Capitalism" also left them off leash when oversight and rules where thrown out the window. Please look up what the work "social" means, here is a hint to play nice with others, to be considerate and make sure everyone has something.
The original poster's point was that under true capitalism, Goldman Sachs would have failed rather than be propped up by the government and thereby guaranteed by additional debt. I don't know why Apple would work with the firm, but it isn't for the need of funds to back the venture. Apple could pay for it with the proverbial coins under the couch cushions.
The word "social" and the words "socialist" or "socialized" are not interchangeable. Regardless of what you find when you look up the word "socialized," in practice it means to be controlled by brute force, to have no consideration for anyone, and to make sure you have something whether or not others have anything under the guise of ensuring that everyone is sharing misery equally. You can dream about Scandinavian socialism all you like but it ends up like Venezuela. You have to be naive to think that socialism isn't driven by greed and envy.
I know what the original post was suggesting and my point is capitalism has been highjacked by Libertarian "me first and who cares about everyone else". You are confusing socialism with communism the later's ideal of sharing everything equally. Socialism has existed in the US since the great depression, and the creation of the income tax. Before Social Security was created elders who no longer worked and had no family or children were pretty much on their own. Every American pays into the SS fund and can draw a pension at their time of retirement. I can imagine anyone thinking this is a bad thing. I have traveled to Scandinavia for 35 years and have seen a democratic - socialism - capitalism government and society close up and it is something to envy and not fear. Too many Americans have no idea of anything outside of the US which is a shame, Please explain what ""socialized," in practice it means to be controlled by brute force, to have no consideration for anyone" ? I think you are thinking of a totalitarian system or dictatorship?
Ok, since you are already this far off-topic, I'll weigh in...
"capitalism has been highjacked by Libertarian "me first and who cares about everyone else"." - This is categorically wrong, and a gross mis-statement of Libertarianism. Libertarians believe in maximum equality and maximum personal freedom for all. You may recognize these as the founding principles of the United States of America.
Economies work best, and the society as a whole prospers most, when the government is strictly limited to ensuring the fewest barriers to entry, and a "fair game" for all participants. The great depression was caused by the government's abject failure to ensure both - followed by its idiotic monetary policy. Government can only ensure a "fair game" by being completely separated from, and having zero interest in, any particular outcome of the game - only that the game is fair, and open to all. Government programs are inherently inefficient, ineffective and and corrupt because the government is being tasked with overseeing themselves. Which is why it has always been a truism that the best government possible is the least government possible.
That said, voluntary social programs (at least those that don't do more harm than good - and preferably *not* run by the government) are commendable because, while it is virtuous to take money out of your own pocket to give to others, it is despicable to take it out of someone else's.
I support your right to speak, even if that speech is an attempt to silence me.
Telling you to shut up isn't an attempt to silence you, it's a plea for you to silence yourself, for the sake of everyone's sanity. I wasn't attacking your rights and the fact that you would immediately leap to political umbrage is so unbelievably tiresome. This is an Apple forum, not a political spectrum argument forum, and the incessant political posturing is both irrelevant and boring.
Comments
I've been waiting for this!!
Reading the comments, what other scumbag bank would be better? The only decent bank I know of is Synchrony.
No, they have had lots of competition in the grubby market. Deutsche Bank for instance has been laundering money for both Russia and U.S. politicians.
I think you are thinking of a totalitarian system or dictatorship?
We have been overrun by extremists on both the left and right and neither seem to understand basic terminology -- or perhaps they don't want to understand it and instead redefine it in order to demonize and disparage those on the other side.
The "Democratic Socialists" speak of the evils of capitalism (usually by picking the most egregious examples and then exaggerating them)
The Libertarians decry anything leaning towards socialism (or anything that involves government control) as "the sky is falling in" kind of evil.
And, increasingly both seem to be justifying their own position by attacking the other.
The truth is: A country needs a bit of both wisely administered. Pure capitalism doesn't work long term -- that's why we abandoned it. But, at the same time, pure socialism doesn't work long term either -- that's why China abandoned it.
As for Spice-Boy's comment: um, you were aware that Apple offers financing on its purchases, right? Is that not a loan? Has Apple ever not offered similar financing? It's a bit late to be worried that Apple might be involved in (gasp) the credit industry at this point ...
I have to believe Apple has done crazy amount of financial modeling here. I can't understand how they think they are going to make any profits. It is such a waste of time and energy
Back to the topic at hand, this seems like a great thing, will definitely use it, but only if privacy can be guaranteed. I looked for a credit card that guarantees privacy, and it doesn’t look like such a thing exists.
Ok, since you are already this far off-topic, I'll weigh in...
"capitalism has been highjacked by Libertarian "me first and who cares about everyone else"." - This is categorically wrong, and a gross mis-statement of Libertarianism. Libertarians believe in maximum equality and maximum personal freedom for all. You may recognize these as the founding principles of the United States of America.
Economies work best, and the society as a whole prospers most, when the government is strictly limited to ensuring the fewest barriers to entry, and a "fair game" for all participants. The great depression was caused by the government's abject failure to ensure both - followed by its idiotic monetary policy. Government can only ensure a "fair game" by being completely separated from, and having zero interest in, any particular outcome of the game - only that the game is fair, and open to all. Government programs are inherently inefficient, ineffective and and corrupt because the government is being tasked with overseeing themselves. Which is why it has always been a truism that the best government possible is the least government possible.
That said, voluntary social programs (at least those that don't do more harm than good - and preferably *not* run by the government) are commendable because, while it is virtuous to take money out of your own pocket to give to others, it is despicable to take it out of someone else's.
I support your right to speak, even if that speech is an attempt to silence me.